32D CONG.....2D SESS. extensive as a sanguine man like Lopez was easily led to suppose. He was also made the victim of a stratagem by the government of Cuba. It is now known that he received letters written at the instance of the government assuring him he had only to show himself with a few followers, and that the population would flock en masse to his standard. It was this impression, no doubt, that caused him to set out with so small an expedition. Had he landed with two thousand men and a few pieces of artillery, there is no doubt that the enterprise would have been entirely successful. But when the Creoles saw that he had made a descent with only four hundred men landing in the vicinity of Havana, they perceived at once that all was lost, and abandoned a movement which they believed could not maintain itself against the Spanish forces on the Island. Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. could not be punished as pirates, remarking that murder and robbery were grave offenses, but not piracy. When the State of New York arrested McLeod for his expedition into that State, and the destruction of the Caroline, he was not tried for piracy, but, as homicide had been committed, he was tried for murder, and given a regular trial in all the forms of law. It is true, that Judge Cowan, in passing upon the case, cited those authorities which allege that persons engaged in these expeditions might be treated as robbers and pirates. These citations were not long since published in one of the papers in this city; but the learned New York Judge did not rely on them as authority in point. And when examined, it will be found that all they intend to assert is, that if the offender commits robbery, he may be punished as a robber; and if piracy, as a pirate. He is not entitled There is no question that Lopez and his men to the benefit of the laws of war, a position which believed they were going in aid of an extensive will readily be conceded. I do not say that the revolt, and a well organized revolution. The ex Spanish officers were bound to admit these men pedition was not undertaken in the spirit of aggres- to quarter, if they had been taken in conflict with sion and plunder, but with a sincere desire to aid arms in their hands; but having given quarter, the cause of liberty. The expedition succeeded in having received them as prisoners, they were engetting out of our ports and failed, and the Ameri- titled to the rights of American citizens. The fifty cans embarked in it having been taken prisoners, I men under Crittenden, who were taken and shot, maintain were entitled to the trial secured to Amer- had not arms in their hands when they were capican citizens by the treaty of 1795, with Spain. Now tured. They were endeavoring to make their I ask if they received that trial in any aspect of the escape from the Island in two boats, as I have case? It will be seen by the official correspond- been informed by good authority. The men were ence, and also by the report of Commodore Parker, in one boat, and the arms in another, which probbased upon conversations held with the Captainably accounts for their surrender. As AmeriGeneral of Cuba, as well as from the other cor- can citizens, then, guilty, not of piracy, but of an respondence which took place, and which may offense against the neutrality laws of this country, be found among our official documents, that the and at most a conspiracy against Spain, they were authorities of Cuba place the right they had to ntitled to a trial. I concede that, as foreigners, punish these men by trying them by the tribunals they might commit treason against Spain, although which did try them, and by denying them counsel that has been denied; but I think the affirmative of as they did, entirely upon the ground that they the proposition the better opinion. Still, they were were pirates. Now, I undertake to say, that no American citizens, entitled to the benefit of the respectably adjudicated case can be found which treaty of 1795 with Spain, which declares: will sustain the position that these men were pirates. What is a pirate? A pirate, according to the definitions of the writers on international law, is a robber upon the high seas. Such also is the definition of the Spanish law writers. Piracy, says Chancellor Kent, is robbery, or a forcible depredation, on the high seas, without lawful authority, and done unimo furandi, and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. The Supreme Court of the United States has also defined the crime to be robbery upon the high seas; which is the universal definition of the writers on international law in modern Europe, including those of Spain. The offense of the Lopez men was not upon the high seas, nor done animo furandi, and no other piracy is known to the law of nations. Neither was it piracy within the definition of the offense given by the acts of Congress. Now, sir, you know the principles of international law are founded upon usage, upon treaty, and upon custom, and require the usage of more than one nation to ingraft upon them a single principle. That is a well-received doctrine, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in passing upon one of the acts of Congress which assumed to add to the international code. The same principle has been recognized by the leading Powers of Europe with reference to the slave trade, which cannot be held piracy apart from treaties. Spain could not make these men pirates by its own declaration; if they were not pirates under the laws of nations, they could not be punished as pirates. I am aware that there are some elementary writers who have said that in unlawful expeditions like this, where the men are taken prisoners, they are to be treated as pirates and robbers, not entitled to the laws of war. But this is to be taken with qualifications; for the proposition as applied to these prisoners, is not supported by a single English or American adjudication. When they commit robbery, they should be punished as robbers; when they commit piracy, they should be treated as pirates; and when they commit murder, they should be punished as murderers. "And in all cases of seizure, detention, or arrest for debts contracted, or offenses committed by any citizen or subject of the one party within the jurisdiction of the other, the same shall be made and prosecuted ( por orden y autoridad de la justicia,') by order and authority of law only, and according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases." It will be seen that the language of the treaty is very broad, and applies to any citizen or subject who has incurred seizure or detention for "offenses committed." It is clear these American citizens were seized and detained within the meaning of the treaty. How, then, were they to be prosecuted? "By authority of law only, and according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases. Such language in a statute in England or this country, would be held to guaranty to the accused a trial according to the law of the land," which, since the days of Lord Coke, has been held to mean a trial by the course of the common law, by presentment or indictment, and a jury. In Spain they have no juries, but the language of the treaty evidently contemplates a trial in the regular course of proceedings according to the civil laws of Spain. Their lawyers and books draw a wide distinction between the proceedings of what they term the ordinary and extraordinary tribunals. Civil courts are held by them to be ordinary tribunals, military and ecclesiastical courts are extraordinary tribunals, and not the regular course of proceeding, under their law, any more than a court-martial is our regular course of proceeding. This is still more apparent by reference to the Spanish side of the treaty, which our Supreme Court held in the case of Clarke, to be the true exponent of the provision of another treaty with Spain, when it alluded to Spanish law and proceedings, and even corrected a construction which the court had previously given to the English article in the treaty. HO. OF REPS. proceedings in the civil tribunals. And ch evidently its sense in this treaty. That such w the intention of the treaty, is apparent from dispatch of Mr. Pinkney, a profound lay who negotiated it, and who said it was a prese provision in treaties with all such countries s Spain. It is evident that he supposed he had a * cured to his countrymen in Spain, a regular a in the civil courts in all cases. The objec this provision of the treaty was to rescue the zens of the United States from these extrao nary and arbitrary tribunals; from these miner and ecclesiastical courts, which had been the grace of the age, and the scandal of christendit At all events, it was the duty of the Administ tion to contend for a reasonable construction the treaty, which secured a fair trial to Ameria citizens. The construction put upon the treaty by the gentleman from New York cannot be susre His construction is, that these citizens of the Us ted States were tried and punished in the s manner as Spanish subjects, and therefore the and their friends had no right to complain. W sir, it was to avoid that very thing that the tran was made. It was to avoid the necessity of citizens of the United States being subjected to the infamous military and ecclesiastical tribunale this clause in the treaty was inserted; and construction that is now attempted to be put epe it, would destroy the whole force and virtue of guarantees of the treaty. Again, the trial by a summary court-martis was a violation of the treaty; because Spanish subjects could not, under the laws of Spain, be tried for treason in those cases where the arrest v made by military authority; they may be tried the ordinary council of war, which is a permane tribunal, but not by a summary court-mara The trial was not therefore the regular preced in such cases even for Spanish subjects, and this respect was a violation of the treaty,—a per I shall present more fully in connection with a case of Mr. Thrasher. Sir, the Spanish authorities attempted to ev the force of this treaty, as I have said, by decla that these men were pirates, who were not pir according to international law. It was only holding that they were citizens of no country, be. the common enemies of mankind, that Spacod shield herself from the charge of having via the provisions of the treaty of 1795. If you v look at the report of Commander Parker, was sent to Cuba by the President to investin this affair, you will find that the Captain Gene places his justification upon that ground as exclusively in his first interview with Commander Parker; and you will see furthermore, by look at the report, that the Captain General did not per tend that they had a regular or legal trial-not eval that they had a regular trial before a military for mission. He admitted that the trial was sumar ry. Commander Parker thus reports his intervev with the Captain General: "He stated that he considered them as pirates, and its they had been so denounced in the proclamation (I President of the United States. That they were tried 2: summary manner, and full proof made of their guilt, and 24 of their participation in the invasion of the Island by Love, He did not consider himself at liberty to furnish me d the proceedings on the trial, but would send them to t own Government, and to the Spanish Minister at Washi ton, who would do whatever was right in the matter, es call of the Government of the United States."" Where is this, no doubt, ex post facto record Why, sir, I marvel that any gentleman in the House should call it a trial. Those men were r rested one day and shot the next. Fifty men we brought to Havana one day and executed the nex This shows the impossibility of there being any thing like a trial, with a fair opportunity to com test the proceedings. But we know in what the The Spanish side declares that American citi- trial consisted, from the statements of respectaber a zens shall be arrested and prosecuted “por orden Americans in Cuba at the time. Several office y autoridad de la justicia." Justicia is ordinarily went into the room where these men were com ! rendered justice; but in this instance, and gener- fined and took their voluntary statements. They ally when used with reference to judicial proceed-admitted that they had been in the Lopez expedi Such was the language of Mr. Clayton, underings, is more properly translated judicature. The tion; and upon that admission the order was issued the administration of General Taylor. He did word in Spanish is of a much more technical by the officers that they should be shot. Is that not admit that the Contoy prisoners were pirates.meaning than law, which is used as the English a trial? Is that the trial contemplated by the On the contrary, he asserted, in relation to all of equivalent in the treaty. The Spanish authors, treaty? If it is, it is in vain to stipulate with a forthem, and especially the Contoy prisoners, that when they use the word with reference to the ad-eign Power that our citizens shall be tried accordthey had not committed the offense of piracy, and ministration of justice, apply it to the course ofing to the laws of the land, with an opportunity 32D CONG.....2D Sess. o establish their innocence. We know that these en were not allowed to contest the jurisdiction of the pretended court; we know that they were ot allowed counsel; we know that they were ot permitted to have evidence, and we know that he whole thing was done in hot haste and in he spirit of revenge. Our Consul, Mr. Owen, ame into town after they were condemned, interposed in their behalf, asked for a postponement, and for the release of some, if not all. The Capain General refused to permit him to intercede for he prisoners, and told him he must know that he vas doing so against the wishes of his Government. The officers of Cuba hurried their victims to laughter; and if the letters from Havana can be credited, their bodies after execution were brutally lesecrated by the mob. I think it, therefore, impossible to maintain that hese men were tried by the regular tribunal secured to them by the treaty. But even admitting hat it was regular to try them by a summary court-martial or any military tribunal, still I insist he treaty was violated; still I say that they id not have the benefits of the provisions guarantied to them by the treaty in relation to trials. It contemplates a trial which is not a mockery. It contemplates a trial which allows the party his witnesses. It contemplates a trial which allows im counsel. It contemplates a trial which gives im a hearing and not a judicial butchery. Now, sir, it was asserted by the Spanish auhorities-and it has also been asserted by this Administration-that if these men received such a sort of trial as Spanish subjects receive, then the stipulations of the treaty were complied with and secured to the criminals. Sir, the treaty is not admissible of such a construction. The very reverse is the object of the treaty, and the bare reading of its words is sufficient evidence of the correctness of that position. The treaty declares: "The citizens and subjects of both parties shall be alowed to employ such advocates, solicitors, notaries, agents, and factors as they may judge proper, in all their affairs, and in all their trials at law, in which they may be concerned, before the tribunals of the other party; and such agent shall nave free access to be present at the proceedings in such causes, and the taking of all examinations and evidence which may be exhibited in the said trials." If we admit that the court which tried Crittenden's men, being a military tribunal, had jurisdiction of the case, still, I say, the treaty was violated in the trial. Because they were never regularly arraigned; because they were not allowed to plead to the jurisdiction; because they were not permitted counsel; and because they were not allowed the regular examination of witnesses in their behalf, according to all the accounts which have reached us. The treaty is a distinct substantive provision, as to the employment of counsel. It secures the right to American citizens to have counsel of their own choice "in all their affairs, and in all their trials at law." It relates to all trials before all the tribunals, whether civil or criminal, whether military or ordinary. It is therefore perfectly obvious that it never was the intention of Mr. Pinkney and the Spanish Minister, when they negotiated that treaty, to put it in the power of Spain, by transferring criminals to military tribunals, to deprive them of the right of counsel, the right of witnesses, the right of being present when the evidence was taken by which they were to be convicted. It is, therefore, in my estimation, preposterous to assume that American citizens, tried even before the military tribunals of Spain, can be deprived of counsel and witnesses merely because Spanish subjects are deprived of them. Why, sir, I need not say to any lawyer in this House, that, whatever may be the general law of Spain, a particular provision for the benefit of American citizens made by treaty, is the law of the case, and that it is the duty of the Spanish tribunals to administer it as the law of the case. I admit, that without such a provision, our citizens must be judged as the citizens of Spain are judged who have committed offenses within their jurisdiction. Suppose the Spanish Government passes an edict that when any one is believed to have committed felony, any officer of the army may order him to be shot without trial and without a hearing, does that abrogate our treaty with Spain? If the Cortes should pass a law declaring that no Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. Spanish subject should have an advocate, agent, or counsel, on any trial before a Spanish tribunal, would it destroy, or in any way affect our treaty provision for the security of American citizens? Sir, the Cuban authorities did not take any such position as to Crittenden and the other followers of Lopez, whom they executed. That was left to the ingenuity of the present Administration and its defenders. They knew that these men had not enjoyed even the benefit of the laws of Spain for the trial of its subjects who were guilty of treason. They were not even tried before the council of war, nor did they have the benefit of the rules of proceeding which prevail in that military tribunal. The Cuban authorities assumed that these men were pirates, and that whatever violence was done them, they were not citizens of any country, and therefore this Government could not complain. Now, sir, although the President did not formally denounce these men as guilty of piracy, although the administration of General Taylor stands committed upon the record of denying that the offense was piracy, yet in his proclamation Mr. Fillmore declared that "such expeditions can only be regarded as adventures for plunder and robbery." Certainly such was not the object of the leaders of that expedition, and to say so was to do gross injustice to their motives and characters. He then proceeds to inform them that they "will forfeit their claim to the protection of this Government, or any interference on their behalf, no matter to what extremities they may be reduced in consequence of their illegal conduct." In the first place this proclamation, by assuming the guilt of all parties in the expedition, anticipated the work of Concha's court-martial. It incited the Spanish authorities to pursue the very course they adopted. If, sir, there was a provision in the treaty with Spain, which guarantied to American citizens the right of trial, the President could not give up that right unless they denationalized themselves by an act of piracy. He was bound to assert it for their benefit. The President cannot suspend the Constitution, nor treaty or laws made in pursuance thereof. On the contrary, he is compelled by his duty and oath of office to see them faithfully executed. It has been argued that the Lopez men had committed a heinous crime, and deserved to die; but men are not hung, in this country at least, by equity. The greatest criminals are as much entitled to the forms of law as the most innocent who are accused. If a guilty man may be condemned unheard, and without a trial, there is no safety for the innocent. The example set by Spain in the case of the Lopez men, if acquiesced in, places it in her power to execute any American citizen without giving him a fair trial. It has practically abrogated the treaty. Again, sir, I disagree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] as to another branch of this subject. In the case of Mr. Thrasher, he has taken the ground that he had become naturalized, or at all events taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown of Spain, and that, therefore, he had forfeited his right of American citizenship, and was liable to be tried as a Spanish subject, and was not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of Adthe treaty. Such, also, was the position of the Administration in relation to Mr. Thrasher, and they appear to have abandoned him to his fate without a struggle. Sir, I am astonished that any one should take the position that Mr. Thrasher was naturalized, in view of the facts and the laws of Spain. What is the record, furnished by Concha himself, the Captain General of Cuba? It is, that Mr. Thrasher had not taken the oath of naturalization, and he summoned Mr. Thrasher before him when he attempted to publish a paper in Cuba in 1850, and prohibited him from publishing it, on the ground that he refused, when thus summoned, to take the oath of naturalization. He required him to discontinue his paper, or take the oath of naturalization. Thrasher refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Spanish Government, and was not, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the act of naturalization, and compelled to abandon his paper. Mr. BROOKS, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman from Texas let me understand his point? Did I understand him to say that Mr. Thrasher did not take the domiciliary oath which was required of him by the Captain General of Cuba? HO. OF REPS. Mr. HOWARD. No, not the domiciliary oath. I admit he took that oath. Mr. BROOKS. I believe the gentleman understands Spanish; the oath which he took was an oath of fidelity and vassalage to Spain-juramento de fidelidad y vasallaje. Is not that so? Mr. HOWARD. No, sir, that is not so, if the gentleman means to assert that it was an oath of allegiance to Spain. Mr. BROOKS. He was obliged to take such an oath under the laws of Cuba, of 1817. Mr. HOWARD. I will set the gentleman right on that subject. In relation to that matter, gross injustice has been done Mr. Thrasher. What is naturalization? When is a man naturalized? When he renounces the sovereign of his origin, and acquires the rights of citizenship under the Government to which he transfers his allegiance. Now, what were the laws of Spain in reference to that subject? I have here the regulation of 1791, contained in the official documents accompanying the President's message. But this whole subject of settlement and colonization in Cuba was regulated in 1817 by a special law. It did not require Mr. Thrasher to swear himself a Catholic, as the gentleman supposes. It only required satisfactory proof of that fact. The regulation is contained at length in a work of great authority recently published in Spain, entitled Legislacion Ultra Marina. "* 66 *Naturalization law of Spain in Cuba. 1st. All the strangers belonging to friendly Powers or nations who wish to establish themselves, or who already are in the Island of Cuba, must make it clear by the proper means to her Government that they profess the Roman Catholic religion, and without this indispensable circumstance, they shall not be admitted to domicile themselves there; but as to my subjects of these dominions and of the Indies, they are not obliged to prove this, because that, in respect to them, there cannot be any doubt as to this point. 2d. As to the strangers who are admitted according to the preceding article, the Governor shall receive from them an oath [juramento de fidelidad y vasallaje ] of fidelity and submission, in which they shall promise to comply with the laws and general orders of the Indies to which the Spaniards are subject. 3d. When the first five years are past from the establishment of these foreign colonists in the Island, and they shall then enter into an obligation to remain perpetually in it, all the privileges and rights of naturalization shall be conceded to them, likewise to their sons whom they shall have brought with them, or who shall have been born in the same Island, in order that they may consequently be admitted to the honorable employs of the republic and the militia, according to the talents of each one. 5th. During the first five years, the Spanish or foreign colonists shall have the liberty to return to their former countries or ancient residences-and in this case they shall be entitled to take from the Island all the property and goods which they shall have brought into it, without paying any dues whatever, for taking them away-but of those which they have gained in the above-mentioned time, they have to contribute ten for a hundred. 9th. The liberty of the foreign colonists to return to their countries or ancient residences during the first five years is absolute, without limitation or condition, and they shall be able to take away their property, or dispose of it as they shall see fit. In the case of war with the Power which is the natural country or sovereign of the domiciliated colonists, these do not lose the rights and advantages of their domicile in the Island of Cuba, although the five years from their establishment shall not have passed. Their property shall not be subject to embargo, sequestration, or any other of the provisions, ordinary or extraordinary, of the state of war. Those who, notwithstanding the war, wish to remain permanently in the Island, to accomplish their five years and naturalize themselves, shall be allowed to do so with perfect liberty, being of credit, good lives and customs. To those who prefer to absent themselves, sufficient time shall be conceded, so that with ease and convenience they can regulate their affairs and dispose of their property, being allowed to carry away all the property they brought with them, or an equivalent thereto, without payment of any dues whatever and paying for what they have gained since, ten for a hundred, according to the 16th preceding article. 24th. The five years being past, and the foreign colonists wishing to naturalize themselves, shall repair to the Government with their letters of domicile, and they shall manifest that they oblige themselves to remain perpetually in the Island. The Government shall take the proper means of information, and their good qualities being certified, their continued residence for five years, landed property or industry, they shall be admitted to take the oath of naturalization, in which they shall promise fidelity to the Catholic religion, the King and the laws, renouncing everything foreign, all privilege and protection that would arise from being foreigners, and promising not to retain any dependence, relation, or civil subjection to the country of their birth-with the explanation, that this renunciation does not comprehend the relations or domestic correspondences of family or relationship, neither the economies of goods or interests, which every citizen stranger can maintain according to the royal schedule, and instruction of the 2d of September, 1791, and circulars since. 25th. With the declared requisites the Government shall 32D CONG.....2D SESS. The law of 1817, as to settlers in Cuba, is not unlike our own law of naturalization. It gives him five years to become naturalized, and gives him, in the mean time, the absolute right to return to his native land; and in case war broke out, he had the right to remove with all his property to his ancient home. At the end of five years he was to come forward to announce that it was his intention to remain perpetually in the Island, to prove his religion and his good conduct, and then to take the oath of naturalization, by which he was required "to promise fidelity to the Catholic religion, the King and the laws, renouncing everything 'foreign; all privileges and protection that would 'arise from being foreigners, and promising not to ' retain any dependence, relation, or civil subjec'tion to the country of their birth." This was complete naturalization, but could only be acquired after proof of five years' residence. He was then furnished with his naturalization papers, and the law declared that "naturalized strangers shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Spaniards." But this oath Mr. Thrasher refused to take when summoned before the Captain General, and it is therefore res adjudicata, in his office, that that gentleman was never naturalized, but refused to surrender his allegiance to the United States, and was in consequence refused the rights of a naturalized subject of Spain. And now as to the domiciliary oath. It does not profess to be an oath of allegiance; and if it did, it would be in violation of the Spanish laws. It would confer no right on Mr. Thrasher, and would subject him to no loss of privilege as an American citizen. The domiciliary oath required him to swear fidelity to the laws of Spain and the Indies. It was, in truth, no more than the declaration required by our law of an intention to become a citizen, accompanied by an oath. Indeed it was not so much, as the Spanish law did not require such an intention to be declared. I am aware the form of oath furnished in the executive document, which was palmed off upon Mr. Webster by the Spanish authorities, purports to be an oath of allegiance; but if Mr. Thrasher ever took such an oath it was extra-judicial, and not authorized by the law, and gave no right. It was obviously a form of oath which had been made under the law of 1791. The second section of the law of 1817 contains the whole regulation in force at the time of Mr. Thrasher's domiciliation. By that law he took, in the language of the law, an oath (juramento de fidelidad y vasallaje) of fidelity and submission, in which they shall promise to comply with the laws and general orders of the Indies to which 'the Spaniards are subject." It is noticeable that while one of the translations from the Department correctly renders vasallaje submission, it translates fidelidad, allegiance instead of fidelity; but nothing is gained by this translation, as it is allegiance to the laws, and not to the Crown of Spain. It is nothing more than the law of nations, under which, if a man comes here, he is bound to obey and not to violate our laws; but that does not make him a citizen of the country. It gives him none of the rights of an American citizen; for the principle is too plain to be controverted, that no man can be naturalized in a country until he complies with the laws and institutions of that country, which confers upon him the rights of naturalization. Mr. Thrasher did not do that. He refused to do it, which Concha himself admits. It is true Concha says he was something more than an American citizen; that he was domiciled, and had taken an oath to obey the laws and orders of the Indies to which Spanish subjects were compelled to submit; but he was careful not to say it was the oath of naturalization. I have chosen to place this matter on the indisputable ground that Thrasher could not become naturalized without renouncing his former allegiance, and taking upon himself the allegiance of Spain, according to the Spanish laws. The judicial doctrine of this country goes the length of expedite the letters of naturalization, by form of which they shall find the order in the royal exchequer ayuntamiento, and respective territorial jurisdictions, without costs or dues, as in the letters of domicile. 26th. The naturalized strangers shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of Spaniards, as likewise their sons and legitimate descendants, according to the 15th article of the preceding. Acquisition of Cuba-Mr. Howard. saying that no one can lose his allegiance until a method is provided for effecting it, by an act of Congress. Chancellor Kent, after a review of all the decisions, thus states the law: "From this historical review of the principal discussions in the Federal courts on this interesting subject in American citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States jurisprudence, the better opinion would seem to be, that a without the permission of Government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the rule of the English common law remains unaltered." Concha rested the right of Spain to try Mr. Thrasher in the manner he was tried on the ground that the military tribunal by which he was tried was a regular tribunal of the Island of Cuba, created by law. What was it, sir? It was composed of a brigadier of the army, and six other officers. I shall not repeat what I have said in relation to there being no right to try an American citizen before a council of war; but I will content myself with this position, which cannot be successfully refuted: Although it were a regular tribunal, and had the right to try him, he was entitled to his counsel, his witnesses, his proofs, and his defense. I have never heard his own published account of the trial denied, as a truthful statement of the facts. It was communicated to Congress by the President. Mr. Thrasher says: "On the 21st October, I was thrown into a dungeon of the city prison, and all communication with any person strictly prohibited. On the 25th, I was removed to my present dungeon, and the fiscal of the military tribunal made his appearance and began a judicial examination. On the 26th ultimo this was continued, and then I saw no one until the 4th instant, when the question was proceeded with, and on the 6th I was again questioned, and finally informed that I was accused of treason. At the same time I was required to select one from a list of officers that was presented to me, who should conduct my defense. Not knowing any of them, I chose at random, supposing he would consult with me and with my legal advisers, as is usual in such cases, in regard to my defense. On the 7th instant, I was, for the first time, allowed to see my friends, and to consult with them as to the best course to pursue. "I conferred with our consul, and he passed several communications in my behalf to the Government here, all of which have been utterly disregarded and not replied to. On the 11th, I was informed that I was to be brought up the next day for sentence. I immediately wrote to my nominal defender, requesting him to come at once to consult with me, and to bring with him the proceedings, which are in writing. He replied, verbally, that he would come in the afternoon. He did not come, and I extended at once a protest against the proceedings, alleging that I had not been heard, and that neither myself nor my legal advisers had been consulted for a proper defense. I sent this to the president of the military commission that night, who refused to receive it, saying, it could only be admitted by the Captain General. "The American consul, Mr. Owen, as soon as informed of this, proceeded to the palace and protested against sentence being pronounced, as I had not been heard in defense. In the morning, my nominal defender came to my prison to inform me that he had been allowed by the court only twentyfour hours to prepare my defense; that he had been occupied until that moment examining the proceedings, which are roluminous, and that within an hour he must return them to the fiscal. "On the 12th I was taken before a court-martial, composed of a brigadier general and six officers of the army. The testimony and proceedings were read before I was brought into court, which is contrary to law and to custom, and when brought in I was asked what I had to say to the charges against me? I replied, I had not been furnished with a copy of the charges; that I had been denied access to the proceedings and testimony; that my nominal defender had neither consulted with me nor with my counsel, and that I now asked that my protest and petition for stay of proceedings should be admitted. I was told by the presi dent of the court, that it should be considered. I was then removed to my dungeon, and heard nothing more of the proceedings until to-day, when I have been formally notified that I have been sentenced to eight years labor in chains at Ceuta, in Africa, with payment of costs." Do you call such a proceeding a trial according to the usual course of proceedings? Do you call that complying with the provisions of the treaty? I can tell my friend from New York, that an argument of that sort will not prevail with any lawyer, because the treaty is positive that he shall have counsel, which was violated in this case. They would not let him select his counsel from Spanish subjects generally. They furnished him with a list of Spanish army officers from whom he was to select one. He selected, as he has said, at random, not knowing a thing about it. That Spanish officer, as a matter of course, instead of defending the accused, did everything in his power to convict him. It is evident that the provisions of the treaty were denied him, not only as to counsel, but as to being present at the taking of the testimony, which was taken in writing out of court. He was not fur HO. OF REPS. nished with a copy of the charges which, toge with the written testimony, was read over in c and then the prisoner was brought in and se what he had to say for himself. It is ob that he was not allowed a defense but conden unheard. The excuse rendered by the Cuban author for not allowing Mr. Thrasher counsel was, 3. no counsel was permitted to appear in these car before the military court, because it produced lay. It held back the victim from the " gard and from chains, and the mines. Such an acft. may content the present Administration; but h hardly be a legal answer to a positive requires in the treaty, that American citizens shall be lowed to employ such advocates and solicit they may judge proper in all their affairs, an all their trials at law. Neither can it be a satisfactory reply to an American, to assure t that all Spanish subjects are made victims.. similar barbarity. It was not the usual course of proceeding o cause no Spanish subject arrested as Mr. Thr was, could be tried before the council of war. I present laws of Spain, as stated in the work a which I have already alluded, declare: "That conspirators being apprehended by the pane troops, detailed for that purpose by the government be judged by the ordinary council of war; but by the e nary jurisdiction, if they were apprehended by the oder requisition, or in aid of the civil authority, exap an of resistance by the criminal to the troops. Then they likewise be judged militarily. In all other cases, acti to article thirteen, the offenders who commit these cr shall be judged by the ordinary jurisdiction, even when apprehension shall have been made by armed in ho with loss of special privilege. And in article foures provided in the trials by this law, there shall not be r thority whatever, except such as shall be exerused? ordinary and military jurisdictions, according to the n which are here shown." Mr. Thrasher's was not a military arrest was taken in the first instance to the office of lice, and was in custody of the chief of per His case was subsequently transferred to a tary court. He was tried, therefore, in viola of the Spanish law, which gave jurisdic such a case only to the ordinary tribunals. T same remark is true of all those prisoners v came in and delivered themselves up under 2 proclamation of the Captain General, and Breckinridge and Beach, of Kentucky, who were arrested at sea by a Spanish merchant e deavoring to make their escape. Neither of an were military arrests, or made under such circ stances as gave the council of war jurisdiction. their cases. The arrest of Breckinridge and Beach wa violation of the law of nations. Those gentes. } were in the Lopez expedition, but had made LE | escape in an open boat, and were a long deson from Cuba-outside of the league which lina.; jurisdiction of any nation over the ocean-w] they were captured by a Spanish schooner K brought into Havana. Concha, the Captain Ge eral, in reply to Commodore Parker, said these men were pirates, and that he would them as such. Now, the Spanish Govern€5 had no more right to seize those two men whe they were captured, than it had to seize the the streets of Washington city, unless the ofes! was piracy. They were, under these circums ces, brought into Havana and condemned by military tribunal, which had no jurisdiction them. I admit that, if they had returned volat tarily within the jurisdiction of the Island, the might have been tried by a competent court us. the treaty. But having been arrested in viola of the law of nations, it was the duty of the C tain General to discharge them, and the dury this Governmnt to demand their release. The same was the case with the Contoy p oners. They had only imagined a conspiracy.a we find in the old English books, that one us to be held guilty of treason who imagined t King's death. If anything criminal was fastene upon them, it seems that they only contemplas. an expedition to Cuba. They were outside of t Spanish jurisdiction, anchored near an islands the sea, under the jurisdiction of Mexico. They were seized, and the Spanish authorities ma.” tained that they had jurisdiction over them, or cause they were pirates. I believe that these pr oners were subsequently released, but that t vessels were not; and I understand from the hoa 853.] 32D CONG.....2D SESS. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE. -rable gentleman from Maine, [Mr. SMART,] that hat subject remains now precisely where it was, nd that the Government has taken no very effiient means to enforce satisfaction to the owners f those wrongfully-seized vessels. Let us make Compensation, by an appropriation, to the Spanish Consul at New Orleans, whose property was destroyed by the mob. But let us also demand satsfaction for those violations of national law, and For the injuries which our own citizens have susained in consequence of the violations of our treaty by the Spanish authorities. A few observations in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from New York on the Crescent City ffair. It seems to me to be undeniable, that it is not within the power of Spain to construe the treaty So as to break down the commercial intercourse between the two countries. Undoubtedly Spain night exclude a person from her shores dangerous to her safety. But the power must be exercised in reason, and not capriciously. They had the right to say that Mr. Smith should not land, but they had not the authority to say that the vessel should not come into port and discharge its cargo, and land ts passengers and mails. It was not alleged that the ship, passengers, cargo, and mails were dangerous to Cuba, or even obnoxious to its authorities. They had no right to deny communication with the ship, unless its officers or crew had committed some of fense against the revenue or other laws, and even then the remedy was by seizure and proceeding in admiralty. Mr. Smith exercised the right of every American citizen, guarantied by the Constitution, to publish his own opinions, if he exercised any right at all. He denies, however, having published anything. If he continued going there without landing, or violating their order not to land, from now to the day of judgment, and observed the institutions of Spain in Cuba, he might, when he returned home, have published his views, and Spain had no legal right to complain; it was no offense against her laws or jurisdiction. If she had a right to complain, she could only proceed through the judicial tribunals of this country; that might have been done in this country, as it was in England, in the case of Peltier, for a libel on Napoleon, and on the common-law principle of the greater the truth the greater the libel, there is no doubt Smith would have been severely punished. But to deny all commercial intercourse to deny that the passengers should be landed, and the mails received, because "the individual, William Smith,' published falsehoods in this country, relative to the Spanish authorities in Cuba, is too ridiculous an idea to be entertained by any man but a Spaniard. I admit if the authorities of Cuba had addressed themselves to this Government in the first instance, through the Spanish Minister, and requested that that individual should not be permitted to go on a semi-official vessel, as a matter of courtesy, the request should have been complied with. But what right had the Spanish authorities in Cuba to take a matter for the diplomatic agents of the Governments into their own hands, and exclude a vessel from commerce on such frivolous pretense? Commercial treaties are worth nothing if our commercial marine can be dealt with in that manner with impunity. Sir, I have made these observations, not because 1 entertain any sentiments of hostility to the present Administration, but because I wish to draw attention to the gross manner in which the rights of American citizens are trampled on by other Powers. Its frequency has erected itself into impunity. The time has arrived when the American, like Briton, should feel the protection of his country's flag in the remotest corner of the globe. That Government which does not protect its own citizens against foreign oppression, will soon sink beneath their contempt, and the scorn of the civilized world. The time has arrived when new life and energy should be infused into our foreign relations. Report of the Secretary of the Treasury. From customs..... Add balance in the Treasury July 1, 1851... The expenditures for the same $47,339,326 62 2,043,239 58 345,820 69 49,728,386 89 HO. OF REPS. 10,911,645 68 Specific appropriations asked for this year.. 30,151,040 64 60,640,032 57 46,007,896 20 $46,203,753 60 $14,632,136 37 This sum is composed of the following particu lars, viz: ..... Expenses of collecting revenue Expenses of collecting revenue Army proper, &c.... Fortifications, ordnance, arming Internal improvements, &c. $11,213,430 74 Pensions.. 2,023,512 00 Naval establishment, including 49,000,000 00 2,000,000 00 300,000 00 Interest on public debt.. 3,400,638 54 586,631 00 $46,203,753 60 51,300,000 00 14,632,136 37 Total means as estimated.. $65,932,136 37 dry-docks and ocean steam-mail Purchase of stock of the loan of 1847... ...... ..$10,368,325 91 Leaving an estimated balance in the Treasury, July 1, 1854, of.. It will be seen, by reference to the foregoing statement, that the total cash receipts and means in the Treasury for the year ending on the 20th June, 1852, were $60,640,032 57. Of which there were received from customs, $47,339,326 62; from lands and miscellaneous sources, $2,389,060 27; and a balance in the Treasury at the commencement of the year of $10,911,645 68. The expenditures for the same period were $46,007,896 20, which includes the following payments on account of the public debt, viz: For interest, including that on $5,000,000 of 5 per cent. stock issued to Texas.....$4,000,297 80 For the redemption of the princi pal of various loans..... Reimbursement of revolutionary debt.... Reimbursement of outstanding Treasury notes... Reimbursement of stock for the fourth and fifth installments of the Mexican indemnity...... Total..... Besides which there was paid the installment of the debt of the cities of the District.. The last installment due to Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo...... Awards to American citizens under the same treaty... 1,986,160 66 1,460 31 300 00 287,596 76 $6,275,815 53 60,000 00 3,180,000 00 529,980 78 Making a total of........ $10,045,796 31 included in the expenditures of the last fiscal year on account of the principal and interest of the funded and unfunded public debt, which, deducted from the above sum, reduces the expenditure to $35,962,099 89. From this latter sum, however, may be still fur ther deducted the following items, which form no portion of the regular expenses of the Govern ment, viz: Repayment to importers of the excess of deposits $846,918 86 on unascertained duties....... Repayment of drawbacks, allowances for damages on imported merchandise, fishing bounties, &c.... Refunding duties under the act of 8th August, 1846.. Refunding duties under the decisions of the Supreme Court, acquiesced in by the Department.. Debentures, and other charges, re 544,452 38 138,086 41 221,985 87 32D CONG.....2D SESS. funded under various acts of A still further reduction may be Making together....... Report of the Secretary of the Treasury. timated at $5,372,079 51, after allowing the sum 113,307 73 of $7,199,479 77 as applicable to the redemption of the public debt. This, however, it must be observed, is the unappropriated and not the actual balance which will be in the Treasury at the date specified. The actual balance undrawn at that date, provided Congress creates no unexpected demands upon the Treasury to be liquidated prior to July next, may be estimated at about $10,000,000, after having redeemed during the year more than $7,000,000 of the 865,555 55 debt. For the fiscal year ending on the 30th of June, 1854, the total receipts are estimated at $51,200,000, which, with the estimated balance in the Treasury on the 1st of July next, will give as the estimated total means for the year the sum of $56,572,079 51. 547,385 02 The estimated total expenditures for that period are $46,203,753 60, leaving an estimated unappro$3,277,691 82 priated balance in the Treasury on the 1st of July, 1854, of $10,368,325 91, without other deduction from the available means of the year, towards the reduction of the public debt, except the sum of $586,631 for the purchase from the land fund of the loan of 1847. 2,249,715 38 Making altogether.... $5,527,407 20 Which, deducted from the preceding sum of $35,962,099 89, would leave $30,434,692 69 as the regular and ordinary, including some considerable items of extraordinary expenditures of the Government for the last fiscal year. It will be observed that the whole amount of the PUBLIC DEBT. The public debt on the 20th November, 1851, have been made since the last annual exhibit of last installment to Mexico is included in the ex- On account of the old funded and On account of the loan of 1843... Do do do received as such.... 1847... HO. OF REFE ceipts from that source, whilst it shows how I ble is the reliance placed upon the large amon which in times of high prosperity are expected. that branch of the revenue. The slightest disturbing causes felt in the de nels of trade at once unfavorably affect the Te ury; so any favorable impetus given to come from causes often accidental, tends for the te a sudden expansion of its revenues. This is servable to some extent in the receipts from Le on foreign goods for the periods above menume The acquisition of our new Territories on the cific, followed by the development of their imme mineral resources, gave a corresponding exte basis for commercial operations. The drain of foreign merchandise from the A2 ports to the Pacific left a vacuum to be fed fresh and larger importations of foreign daa goods, which of course was followed by a ne sponding increase of receipts into the na Treasury. The repeated and disastrous conflagration the principal port of the Pacific, destroying z lions of property in foreign goods, tended : still further increase of foreign importations. T. channels of trade, however, having once m accommodated themselves to these new circume ces, we find a gradual diminution in the yer Rearly $2,000,000. A new discovery of me wealth, though not within the boundaries of own country, yet within the reach of its enterpris is followed by increased buoyancy in trade, and corresponding increase in the revenues arising frie it. By referring to my former annual reports, the views of this Department may be found somewha in detail of the results which, in my opinion, may be expected to flow sooner or later from a legs i tion which tends so injuriously to affect, if not a great extent to destroy, some of the promine $60,000 00 manufacturing interests of the country, by gives to the foreign producer the control of the plies of our home market. The iron interest cited, to show the effect of permitting the su foreign productions in all their various staph manufacture to be thrown upon our markets: almost nominal prices, and consequently upo payment of comparatively nominal duties. irportations of bar, pig, and other iron for the ve ending 30th June, 1845, were 102,723 tons ducing duties amounting to $1,794,784; and the year ending 30th June, 1852, the imports ver $3,272,812. Thus it is seen that while the c 435,149 tons, producing duties amounting a tity imported has increased about four and a cer ter times over that of 1845, the aggregate dite received is less than double the amount recer from that source in 1845, and that, too, unders heavier rate of duty at the latter period. 2,143 39 1,711,400 00 9 74 650,100 00 5,000 00 50 00 Making a total of........ $2,428,703 13 The balance remaining in the Treasury on the 1st July, 1852, it will be seen, was $14,632,136 37. Treasury notes paid in specie or By the last annual report from this Department, the estimated total receipts and means from all sources for the year ending 30th June, 1852, were $62,411,645 68. The estimated total expenditures for the same period were $50,952,909 59; leaving an estimated unappropriated balance in the Treasury on the 1st of July last of $11,458,743 09. The actual balance in the Treasury at that date $14,632,136 37 was. From which deduct the balance of appropriations already made for the same fiscal year, undrawn, but subject to draft, on the 1st July last, of... To the payment of which the actual balance in the Treasury on that date of $14,632,136 37 was liable, and the actual unappropriated balance in the Treasury The public debt on the 1st of January, 1853, was $65,131,692 13, (as per statement,) exclusive of the remaining $5,000,000 deliverable to Texas under the act of 9th September, 1850, when the provisions of that law are fully complied with. Since the above date an additional amount of the public debt has been redeemed to the extent of about $250,000. The Department possesses no authority to pur6,108,315 48 chase at a rate above par value any portion of the on the 1st of July last was..... $8,523,820 89 The estimated receipts for the current fiscal year, as submitted in December, 1851, were $51,800,000. The actual receipts so far as returns have been received for the five months ending the 30th November, being $22,220,299 20, indicate the then estimates of receipts to have been nearly correct. The then estimated expenditures as submitted to Congress for the current fiscal year were $42,892,299 19, and the unappropriated balance in the Treasury on the 1st July, 1853, provided no six per cent. loan of 1847, and which is only re- cure it on more favorable terms. Some doubts have existed as to the direct and This enormous increase in the importations of iron, at prices so far below the fair or usua of production, both here and abroad, while it pro duced no corresponding benefit to the Treas destroyed in a good degree the competition of c own producer and manufacturer. The result the foretold is now partially realized. The foreg producer, by a reduction of prices on his part, a of duties on our part, having possessed himse the control of our market, raises the prices of ires. it is believed, beyond the remunerating point, az certainly far beyond the rates ruling during the period of the late hopeless struggle of our o manufacturer to sustain himself. additional appropriations beyond the estimates positive authority of the Department to purchase enterprises now in progress, whilst it is attends then submitted should be made by Congress, was estimated at $20,366,443. Congress, however, in its appropriations exceeded the estimates submitted by this Department (including provision for any deficiency in the income of the Post Office in consequence of the reduction in the rates of postage) about ten millions of dollars. The actual expenditures for the current fiscal year, as appropriated and authorized by Congress, (exclusive of the sum to be applied to the re demption of the public debt,) therefore amount to $53,360,579 09, in place of $42,892,299 19, as estimated by the Department; and the balance in the Treasury at the end of the current fiscal year is es some of the other stocks at rates above their par WAYS AND MEANS. The receipts from duties on foreign merchandise for the last fiscal year exhibit a decrease as compared with the preceding year of $1,678,241 30. This is deemed but a temporary decline of the re The effects of this state of things are felt in the suddenly-enhanced prices of iron, which must be very large increase of duties consequent upon the paid by our consumers, and with the most un vorable influences upon our numerous railroa with no corresponding benefit to those whose cape tal, embarked in this branch of manufacture, has been totally lost. On the other hand, by this rise in the prices of iron, it may be expected that a new stimulus will be given to that branch of America labor, which may again be met by similar conse quences, when it shall have become a formidable competitor with the foreign producer, ending in a destructive reduction in price, and a redundant supply. Whilst the foreign commerce of the country, and the foreign market for its productions are undoubtedly of great importance; yet they both probably receive an undue share of consideration, |